On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:00:25 +0200, Peter Brink
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What does the list say?
Collectively? "Hire a lawyer."
Personally, I believe that it is safest to assume that you have a
license with everyone you put in you Section 15. If Maggie releases
"BWR Ships" based on Joe's "
-Original Message-
From: Maggie Vining
>
> I think it mostly works like this:
>
> A= Open content produced by Wizards of the Coast via the
> System Reference
> Document
>
> B= new open content created by another company
>
> A + B = C
>
> C= A product containing open game content wit
It strikes me that the problem here isn't a matter of personal ethics
-- it's a matter of business ethics.
When I was a contract employee, when I was working a contract it was
understood that the information I dealt with was private to my employer
and not to be shared with other employers. It was
At 04:00 PM 7/31/2004 +0200, Peter Brink wrote:
Having searched the archives of OGF-L and not found any clear answer
to a question of mine I ask it here. It should be noted that my
archive of this list goes back to early 2002, and I've seen numerous
references to issues which seem to have been disc
I think it mostly works like this:
A= Open content produced by Wizards of the Coast via the System Reference
Document
B= new open content created by another company
A + B = C
C= A product containing open game content with varying PI restrictions.
What we rarely see is:
(A+ B) + (A + B) = C
W
I love the extra freedoms that limited licences
give. This one is an especially good idea. Lets
suppose that someone uses your OGC and your limited licence. You get a product with thing properly cited, which is great. I
do have one small concern though:
What happens when a
second generatio
I think it is a shame that *everyone* on this list has to lose of Bruce, because he
doesn't like something Ryan did.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Baugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 6:13 PM
> GAMA had this announcement today (I quote just the lead):
> I'm not
Having searched the archives of OGF-L and not found any clear answer
to a question of mine I ask it here. It should be noted that my
archive of this list goes back to early 2002, and I've seen numerous
references to issues which seem to have been discussed prior to that,
so this may have been dealt
Point well taken, Spike. I thought it was important to have a preface
to show folks how the limited license was meant to be used, so
I'm grateful for a suggestion that will make it clearer & less likely
to be misleading.
- Tavis
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTEC
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Tavis Allison wrote:
> Behemoth3, Inc. enthusiastically supports the open source licensing
> movement, and we salute the creators of the Open Game License for
> this revolutionary contribution to our community. In this spirit we
> are honored to release sections of this book a
Very well, if I sense that you are up to something that would wreak havoc on
your integrity I promise I'll come to you with it. You're welcome to do the
same with me.
- Original Message -
From: "Steven Trustrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:4
11 matches
Mail list logo
